I see that Rep. Bob Ney, a Republican from Ohio who happens to be the chairman of the House Administration Committee, has ordered the substitution of the supposedly patriotic “freedom fries” for french fries on House cafeteria menus. Likewise with french, oops, I mean “freedom toast”. I also see that foolish people in unimportant places around the country are following suit. 
Some people have pointed to the so-called “precedent” of calling sauerkraut “liberty cabbage” and hamburger “liberty steak” during WWI, but that was just as stupid then as “freedom fries” are now. Also, to cite that precedent misses an important point: We were at war with Germany at that time. Are we now at war with the French? Silly me, I thought it was Iraq that we are preparing to invade. It just goes to show you how deep the shortcomings of Bush’s “with us or against us” logic really are.
Another foolish thing that people are saying is something along the lines of, “if the French don’t support our country, we shouldn’t support them”. What a brilliant reason to rename french fries (which, I’m sorry to have to point out, in no way support French anything). This is another example of foolish logic at work. It’s not that the French do not support America’s fight against terrorism, but simply that they are not convinced that the Bush administration has shown that an entirely discretionary, unprovoked, unprecedented, pre-emptive war is necessary right now. I agree on that count. (I do generally concede, however, that a war could have positive effects—but only if it is handled properly, which this war effort has not been.)
It also really bothers me when people suggest that French policy about the U.N. resolution on Iraq should be dictated by their gratitude for saving them from German occupation during WWII. The way the press has characterized the French as “weasels” or “surrender monkeys” is really offensive—not just to the French, but to thinking Americans as well. Are we so dull that we are unable to make a distinction between the situation then and the one facing us now? 
First of all, if loyalty to one’s military saviors is a political bargaining chip (and I don’t think it should be), it is well worth pointing out that the United States would not even exist today if it were not for the French assistance we received during the Revolutionary War. 
Also, to claim that “we’ve always been there for them in times of need” falls short on two counts. First, no, we have not “always” been there for the French, which should be obvious to anyone who knows that the United States sat out for nearly two-thirds of the first world war and until we were directly attacked in the second. In both cases, it was our own national interest, not a desire to save the French, that led us into war. Second, to use the expression “times of need” implies that we need to attack Iraq right now, which is a point that is open to some dispute. A more pressing case of “need” could be made for attacking North Korea (which already has nukes and is defiantly making more) or Iran (whose nuclear program is far more developed than Iraq’s), or even Osama bin Laden (whose continued elusiveness gives the administration reason to scapegoat Iraq).
As our Congress abandons its constitutional duty to discuss the need for war and instead turns its attention to petty, childish ways to rename menu items as a way of expressing dissatisfaction with the French (who, I should add, are merely doing what they are perfectly entitled to do—the French government, unlike our own, did not cede all decision-making authority to George Bush), I cannot help but question those in our government who suggest that the United Nations is teetering on the brink of irrelevance. I would say that it is Congress, not the U.N., that is making itself irrelevant.
I’m afraid I have to side with Ted Rall on this issue: “French-bashing is a nasty symptom of an underlying American predilection for anti-intellectualism.” 
I don’t know what else to say about my utter disappointment with this Republican-dominated Congress’s failure to grapple with relevant issues, except perhaps for an expression that we English speakers have borrowed from the French: c’est la vie!
Do let me know if anyone in Congress recommends that we pack up the Statue of Liberty and ship it back to France. Although I wouldn’t agree with that notion, either, at least it would be a meaningful, non-trivial expression of disapproval.